anwnate Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Sorry for the delay. I had a few people over this weekend. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anwnate Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anwnate Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Hunsaker Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Nate, thanks for posting all this info! Again, really wish I could have made the trip - so frustrated that I was so sick all week!! I'm curious, what is the algorithm being used for the allometry basis? The below is for everyone: Without delving too deep, it is interesting to see how someone like @Chez finishes 5th, then drops to 21st on an allometric comparison. And @Jedd Johnson takes 2nd, then 5th, respectively. Choice of exponent can cause hyperbolic results as you move outwards on the bell curve. With a cursory review of the data, there appears to be minimal weight-driven results, similar to KKGC 2016, above the 83kg grouping. Grippers top 10: 4 competitors in 83kg class, winner 120+, 2nd 83, 3rd 105 Flask top 10: 3 competitors in 83kg class, winner 83, 2nd 120+, 3rd 120 Crusher top 10: 3 competitors in 83kg class, winner 120+, 2nd 83, 3rd 120 Top 5 overall: 83, 120, 120+, 83, 120+ Top 5 allometry: 83, 83, 74, 83, 120 If weight correlation existed at a real level, or were linear as purported, these results wouldn't happen. I think we need to take a look at how handicapping weight classes, or penalizing the big guys, isn't viably substantiated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeezus Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bryan Hunsaker said: Nate, thanks for posting all this info! Again, really wish I could have made the trip - so frustrated that I was so sick all week!! I'm curious, what is the algorithm being used for the allometry basis? The below is for everyone: Without delving too deep, it is interesting to see how someone like @Chez finishes 5th, then drops to 21st on an allometric comparison. And @Jedd Johnson takes 2nd, then 5th, respectively. Choice of exponent can cause hyperbolic results as you move outwards on the bell curve. With a cursory review of the data, there appears to be minimal weight-driven results, similar to KKGC 2016, above the 83kg grouping. Grippers top 10: 4 competitors in 83kg class, winner 120+, 2nd 83, 3rd 105 Flask top 10: 3 competitors in 83kg class, winner 83, 2nd 120+, 3rd 120 Crusher top 10: 3 competitors in 83kg class, winner 120+, 2nd 83, 3rd 120 Top 5 overall: 83, 120, 120+, 83, 120+ Top 5 allometry: 83, 83, 74, 83, 120 If weight correlation existed at a real level, or were linear as purported, these results wouldn't happen. I think we need to take a look at how handicapping weight classes, or penalizing the big guys, isn't viably substantiated. I suggest reading the following article by Greg Knuckols on different methods of calculating best lifter. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/whos-the-most-impressive-powerlifter/ The big guys aren't really penalized in this format, in my opinion. They still have the same opportunity to win their weight class and if they perform exceedingly well for their weight they can take "best lifter". Allometric is considerably more fair to big guys than linear scaling, and makes more sense than Wilks, which is designed with weird coefficients based on powerlifting records. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KapMan Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Squeezus said: I suggest reading the following article by Greg Knuckols on different methods of calculating best lifter. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/whos-the-most-impressive-powerlifter/ The big guys aren't really penalized in this format, in my opinion. They still have the same opportunity to win their weight class and if they perform exceedingly well for their weight they can take "best lifter". Allometric is considerably more fair to big guys than linear scaling, and makes more sense than Wilks, which is designed with weird coefficients based on powerlifting records. Wilks is dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Climber028 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Thanks for the full results. I did better than I thought and even would have been competitive in the next highest weight class. Excited to improve these lifts for future comps and someday learn how to set a gripper 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anwnate Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 minute ago, Squeezus said: I suggest reading the following article by Greg Knuckols on different methods of calculating best lifter. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/whos-the-most-impressive-powerlifter/ The big guys aren't really penalized in this format, in my opinion. They still have the same opportunity to win their weight class and if they perform exceedingly well for their weight they can take "best lifter". Allometric is considerably more fair to big guys than linear scaling, and makes more sense than Wilks, which is designed with weird coefficients based on powerlifting records. I'll readily admit that much of this is beyond me. When I started grip in 2011, there seemed to be no way for a lighter guy to win the overall (unless you have the initials K.B.). Then comes Wilkes with obvious flaws. Now we are moving to allometric. This is all in an effort to create an environment that is most competitive. As far as the big guys go... I messed with Jedd's weight and if he dropped to 231, he would have increased his score from 11.10 to 11.86...keeping him in 5th place. When I dropped him to 204, he finally moves up and takes 3rd place with a 12.88. This surprises me since he lifted the second amount of weight on straight scoring. Since I don't see that happening, I do wonder if the high end is being penalized. Note: @Daniel Fleming was honest enough to tell me that he only closed a 150 as opposed to the 153 written in the data. After plugging it in, thankfully it changes nothing about the award order and only makes him lose 1/10th of a point. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedd Johnson Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 I plan on making a much more detailed response, regarding this formula, but in my opinion, this formula was unnecessary, give the events used in this contest. For the last few weeks, I've been reading how Axle Deadlift should not be used, and that a one hand event like the Crusher should be used, to spare peoples' backs. So why, when the the lighter event is used, would there also need to be incorporated a formula to favor lighter bodyweight people? To top all this off, I'll also add that this formula DOES indeed penalize bigger lifters quite heavily. I asked Nate to run the results with me at 231, the lightest I have EVER been in grip (2013 and part of 2014) and my results did not change at all. I would have needed to drop 24lbs to get to 231 (I weighed 255 at SJ4), and it wouldn't have made a dent in the score (edit: I meant placing here). The events at SJ4 were not bodyweight dependent. If anything, the grippers, being a 30mm set and the Crusher, being 2.5" favored the larger handed people, they were hand size dependent. In my opinion, if you want to use a variable related to individual differences, then hand size should be that factor. The definition of allometry has to be with proportional size of body parts - I never looked this up until now - the size of the hand is what matters most. Not the overall body, ESPECIALLY with the Gripper and Crusher. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedd Johnson Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 @anwnate - You posted while I was writing. I don't remember plugging in the 204, but I think that shows that the allometric formula is indeed flawed for our sport. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Jedd Johnson said: In my opinion, if you want to use a variable related to individual differences, then hand size should be that factor. I agree with Jedd. In most grip events this is a bigger advantage than body weight (events like the hub are an exception and body weight helps more on the axle than other events). A short stocky guy with huge hands could have a lower body weight than a much taller muscular guy with average or smaller hands. Hand size is huge on the crusher especially for short guys with huge mitts that will kill on the crusher with a body weight formula. Height makes you weigh more. a lot of guys were at this comp in the 6'0"-6'5" range But none of it matters much to me. I just show up and compete and try to do the best I can. We all play with our physical gifts whatever they are. Edited July 17, 2017 by Chez 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anwnate Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jedd Johnson said: @anwnate - You posted while I was writing. I don't remember plugging in the 204, but I think that shows that the allometric formula is indeed flawed for our sport. I should note...that when Jedd drops to 3rd with a 93kg BW, Dan is literally only 5/100ths ahead of him. Probably needless to say, Gil took it down anyway it was done. Jedd, while you probably feel a little screwed at this point, I gotta say that for YEARS, the little guys were shut out of the overall...regardless of how many BW World Records they could break in a comp. Getting things completely locked down on the body weight thing may take a very long time. In the mean time, Weight Class will always be considered fair as can reasonably be calculated. Pulling handsize into computations is a Pandora's box. Some people have much bigger palms, some fingers, some have short as hell pinkies. The sport needs to simplify to move forward and expand, not complicate. Frankly, except perhaps for making a name at Nationals, I'm not exactly sure why comps need an "overall" winner. I think that SJ4's 83kg Champion is just as cool as SJ4's 120kg Champion. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Hunsaker Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 @Squeezus a few key problems, while I appreciate your perspective: (I've read the article) 1. Most of your body is utilized on a squat/deadlift/bench, if you do it right. I don't need anything but my elbow down to close a gripper. Viably answer this and I'll concede: What does my leg mass do to benefit me on a gripper close? Or how does it help me on the flask? We're talking 100lbs on the flask - my 8 year old daughter has strong enough legs to pick that up - it doesn't play in at all. 2. The ability to do most things in grip, are tied almost purely to work performed from the elbow down. Maybe the crusher uses your biceps and upper back...but not that much. For me it is mainly finger strength. I one-arm deadlift 500lbs all the time...that requires your back and legs, and is from 11 inches. A crusher is from 20ish inches. Not a bodyweight tie-in, though bodyweight does correlate, here, better than it does on most other lifts. Still not enough to substantiate the allometric approach. 3. The article brings up very valid counter-points on body composition. Let's keep it to you and me. My bones probably outweigh your bones by a fair amount as I'm 6'8. You are about 200lbs and I'm about 300lbs. Pretty easy conclusion. How does that bone mass help me, relative to a lighter you? Take it further: it is likely that my legs, back, etc, are all bigger than yours, and weigh more...not hard to deduce. How does that help? On a deadlift, sure, to some degree (not going off on the leverages tangent now). On a gripper, never. Allometry is predicated on extrapolating interrelationships from similar basis, not vastly different. It absolutely penalizes bigger people in grip, and more so if they aren't in great shape. From the article: "Superheavyweights will be screwed by any reasonable formula used to compare relative strength." As I said, you move out along the bell curve and you get more and more skewed results, which means it is inherently unfair. If you read what I wrote and can explain it away, great. But I came up with that in a matter of minutes and didn't need to run all the numbers. The KKGC results showed the exact same non-correlation I'm explaining now, and I did run those numbers. Grip cannot utilize these functions that they use for powerlifting or weightlifting - it doesn't make sense. It doesn't always make sense for powerlifting, either, per the article. Develop an equation that factors in forearm density with hand size, and finger length, and maybe you are onto something. Otherwise it doesn't play. Kudos to you Gil - you are really strong. You won both categories. I'm in no way taking away from that. You would have beaten me this week, too. So are you super-humanly stronger than me, and Chez and Jedd, due to the allometric results or is it possible that allometric comparisons don't make sense in this framework? @Jedd Johnson @Chez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KapMan Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 22 minutes ago, anwnate said: Frankly, except perhaps for making a name at Nationals, I'm not exactly sure why comps need an "overall" winner. I think that SJ4's 83kg Champion is just as cool as SJ4's 120kg Champion. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riccardomagni Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Why have the formula if there are already weight classes? I agree with Nate's post above. Why the need for an overall winner at all? Maybe I am alone here, but I started lifting weights to get big and strong. As I posted last week, the old time guys that are grip legends were monsters. We don't remember them because of their bodyweight. We remember them because they lifted ridiculous objects. Objects so heavy that many of us cannot beat them today... Nate, I appreciate all of the effort that you took to run the contest. Thanks! Even though I was unable to go, it sounds like a fantastic event. I just hope our sport doesn't go the way of powerlifting with many different leagues because everyone wants a trophy... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashtan Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Huge results! Viva to all comps! This tournament really a impressive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Ruby Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Congratulations to everyone who competed it looks like it was a fun contest. Were there any videos of any bends or lifts from the day? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anwnate Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 Just now, Stephen Ruby said: Congratulations to everyone who competed it looks like it was a fun contest. Were there any videos of any bends or lifts from the day? There were 2 camera men (rich and mike) with 3 cameras. Tons of film. It may take me months to get a DVD together...but it'll be a free download. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 I'm fairly certain that @MCrushetta pulled more than I can on the Crusher. Sick numbers posted by Dan Fleming and Bob Sundin. Great overall results! It was really exciting to look through these. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Who is Devourn Harris pulling 96kg on the crusher!? 211 pounds good gawd 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist of Fury Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, Cannon said: Who is Devourn Harris pulling 96kg on the crusher!? 211 pounds good gawd He also made an attempt on the WR. There's been a lot of good lifting with the rolling handles lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashtan Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 minute ago, Fist of Fury said: He also made an attempt on the WR. There's been a lot of good lifting with the rolling handles lately. Any video of this attempts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist of Fury Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Just now, Kashtan said: Any video of this attempts? I don't know, I hope so. I was just reading the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
temmmeeee Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 6 minutes ago, Kashtan said: Any video of this attempts? I have one of the WR attempt which I can upload but it's just a little hop. Here is the 96KG lift: 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashtan Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 minute ago, temmmeeee said: I have one of the WR attempt which I can upload but it's just a little hop. Here is the 96KG lift: His hand - as unorthodox underhand. Much difficult than classic overhand. Is it more convenient for him, or has nobody shown him how convenient? Potential of Duevorn - colossal. Next time - WR on Crusher will be his. From powerlifting this man? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.